IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1:1?" DAY OF 3ANUARY, 2O1,O.jfQ_J~~,_VV PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE M,AN3'ULA,1'CHELDJRTV V & :1 '. THE HON'E5LE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN:;GPOPA»L,A'~G'O\N":3;A,.'*1r_j WRIT APPEAL N0.1'é_8'4/z2O(j9v-(VLBeRE.S3A¥,_"~-.. BETWEEN: > . M A 1. SR1 A.S.PARAMESHwARAIAN,;.f ; AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS; _ 1 - " 2. SRI A.S.MA,HA'DE'\/AI:AHg AGED AE3_OUT e<;_8__ _\f'EARS.'- 3. SRI ~ V AG ED APs'OI.JT_ S4i"fYEARS; ALL ARES/O.OP LATE Av;_N';~S,R.§KANTAIAH, RESIDENTS OF FORT.r\«iAI'N_ ROAD, HOLENARAS'I~PU'RA_}_ * * HASSAN PDISTPQICT ~ 573211. :APPELLANTS V:(BY,,VSR.::"'i£,..'LtV,NARASIMHAN, ADV.) 'A.NSD'._=f V' 1. STATE' O-ERARNATA KA ._REP: BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, _ D..EPARTT~---TENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT - _ »_*A.ND""MINICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 1. :V1_.S-.B'UILD1NGS,DR.B.RAMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -- O1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION v.v.TOwERS,9TH FLOOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 01. 3. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. :RESPONDi'E--NSjCrS (BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGAEORR1_8iVIR'2I?_';v. _ V M/s. KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVS. FOR R3), THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FII;ED--..U/ST»'..'4.'A"'O'FTHE"-, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT -ACT-._PRAYING.TO_ S~ET-"ASIDE » ' THE ORDER PASSED IN wRI"I""E4P»PETITIO'R.__N'O..'-16822/2005 DTD:19/O3/2009. THIS APPEAL COivi.IN--r3 PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, VENUGVOPALA G«Ow'DIA'_'.3., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWINC3:~_ " . 1 I CI1-a|Ie.nge- is to the Order passed by the iearned Sin"gie"J.:Ici--.ge'*v_diisfnissing the writ petition. The in A.theIwrit""p'etitiOn was to the notification dated by the 15' respondent, laying down the
g.L:’iI_Ielines”vI§4;{Viti5I regard to the disposai of the properties
Igheid b~y_t:.he Eocai bodies and aiso to a Communication of
A “:I:”I;hVeII2″fd respondent dated 31.0?.20(34.
I
/Q
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case as stated by
the appellants is as follows:
Appellants are the members of a Hindu undiyided
family. 15″ appellant is the kartha. Appellants..l,are’__”4fjh,e’
owners of properties bearing Municipal Katha:’iioVs.13:2§_9
3300 situated by the side of i-ia:s;san::A’–‘3Mys’ior–e_.:
i-iolenarasipiira. Appellants have estalb’iiished_’.i”.I.:.their’said
property a petrol bunk name_”‘an-d xlstylle of
“A.S.Parameshwaraiah Tend Towards the
eastern end of the petrol to Hassan –
Mysore Road,;*’t’i’i’e,r:é isipa to the Town
Municipal CouVnc§wi..”‘~-,a§&pp’evl«lan–ts’sought grant of the said site.
By a con’irfnunvica’tio’n, 23.08.1985, 3″‘ respondent
intirjnfiatyed the”~a_p:pe||ants that the property has been
to at an upset price of Rs.16/– per Sq.mtr.
l”Appeil1a”ntsjiotitained katha of the said property vide an
end’o’rse:.rhe’u1’t dated 188.198 and paid the tax. on
,::1A8.;Q7.1V9E.39, Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District had in
‘relation to grant of the said property, instructed the 3″‘
‘respondent to verify the proposal and fix the market price
\
/,’ .
_V chauenged.
at Rs.47.64ps. per Sq.mtr, pursuant to which, a decision
was taken in the meeting of the 3″ respondent on
28.12.1989, fixing the price at Rs.-48/~ per Sq.mtr.”~.On
12.06.2003, 13′ respondent issued a Governm..ent_,»V.0’rti;e:r”
dated 02.06.2003 specifying the persons_tolj”‘wh’o:rni’the’~00
lands belonging to a Munici,pality:;.;o»rllother
could be granted. Contending théatllthe notiifiycatiois,”islwflg
arbitrary and even otherwise d”id:”i1ot relatVe”*to-3 the earlier
transactions, the same:’was_«”gti_estion’e~d,. Since” the 3″‘
respondent had addressed,’elf”|:ette–r..:v’t~o.I’V’~tlfie appellants,
stating that, t,he”ggrant::.,mad–e: in t’h–eir._._fafvour is cancelled
and also tookn,ste’ps’*to”‘d_ispose’ of the property by public
auction 25.05.2005, the same were
‘A 3″‘–..respondent filed statement of objections. It
conthevnidved”_~that,,'”the’writ petitioners have not approached
V . the lcourtiwith clean hands and the statements made in the
.:writ._.petiVt’ion are distortion of facts, misleading & incorrect
a”nd”‘such a course of action has been adopted with
is
/
4-:
malafide intentions and oblique motives. Appellants had
made an application for grant of the plot No.27,7V€l…_4:”‘Qn
08.06.1983, the issue came up before
Committee which passed a resolution to grant»th:e.,p’ropeArt’g{u
to the appellants. On the date ofrpassinfg.’
the 15* appellant happened,.to,__. beA”i:.h_e”
Councilor and also the Chairma’ni”o_i’thVe FVi’nanVc’eV’:Corhmittee
of the 3″‘ respondent. over by
the 1″ appellant.”The not had any
Standing Comrni4ttfpe’Vas:ion was stated that,
the appellants “‘i,<e'pt silent about the
resolution of the Finance Committee,
which waschaired' other than the 15' appellant,
virtueV"o.f,:his position as the Chairman of the
Firia.nce_v"'CQm§é:..ittee, has wielded influence on the other
rriernb_ers',«i'i'_n__geti:ing the resolution passed. The resolution
_ is op'posedto""'the principle "that no person can be a judge
C it his__ own cause". In view of the suppression of material
withholding of material information and the
C documents, the petitioners are guilty of "suppressio veri
l/.
/
and suggestio falsi”. On the very same day, Municipal
Council passed a resolution i.e., after the Fiiiahce
Committee passed its resolution, approving
the property to the appellants. The market__v:a~l..ue::_o’fthe'”T
land was fixed at Rs.16/«~ per
23.08.1985, appellants were caliedj’vuponyflltoVi” tender? V
Rs.7,0-40/«~ being the cost of the””s:a”id property’, :.iV-Le.,2§suVbject
to approval / sanctionVbyV._the’Véo’ve.r_n.m’e.nt. lihelfamount
was tendered on by a letter
dated 12.04.1€§88:,«..forwardedrtherxr:e’s’ow!ut.ioh to the Deputy
Commissioner a_rfi:i_,. also .su’b’.mi’tt–e.d that’, on the basis of the
informaition-_provioe:d:’by'”th:e”=office of the Sub-Registrar as
regards to ‘the prevaliliyngrnarket value of the property in
the Iyocallity, the”‘m_arket:price of the property works out to
Sq.mtr and the total value of the
piop’e_rty”‘wov_u_ldV~l;work out to Rs.19,130/«-. Since the value
V V _ of thétrahsaction exceeded Rs.10,000/–, the concurrence/
a::ppro.valV”‘of the Government being necessary, requested
Eieputy Commissioner that the proposal be
T –:’.,:”r<~;-commended to the Government for its approval. A
R
/.'._.
notice dated 06.01.1989, was published in the newspaper
on 18.01.1989, bringing to the knowledge of the _G~e_nel_ralV
Public: regarding the resolution passed
property to the appellants. Objecti.o,ns__wer_e”ra’i*s.e’d ”
general public for the grant of propV’e4rty,;_”contenldlng
the property is sold by publ’iVc’*-a_uction,’V:it at
much higher value. In view the
members of the gcommissioner
conducted a spot in~s’pe.c;tio’r1–‘property on
24.053989. . opposed the
directed the 3″‘
respond’-ent._toA on the existing market value
of the prop’e.rty.v The”Tgow:n”_.».M’unicipaI Council in its meeting
heldon”28.12.1’989Vdiseussed the issue and by taking into
ooI1s_iVlder:at’i.onfiuthe previous resolution dated 08.06.1983
and”-l’._allso’Tlshe’V~l..;’d’i”rection of the Deputy Commissioner,
_ resolved .-._t:hat””‘the upset price for the property be fixed at
Sgmtr and to submit the same for approval of
Government. The resolution was forwarded along
99 ..y:”vvi’tlh a letter dated 16.01.1990 requesting the Deputy
R
K’).
Commissioner to recommend to the Government to grant
approval for ailotment of the property to the appe|la”n,ts.
The President of Hassan District Congress (I) 3
letter dated 05.11.1990 objected to the ailotmentiivV’i”heV.v.,’ K
Deputy Commissioner forwardedfthe’«proposaildl«t_o,_”t:hel.’.
Director of Municipal Administration ‘:fo_rl:a.p.proval~_,A who
examining the entire matter,'”–iii’c:o–nve3rVed-
Commissioner that, the:”.a.rea,~io’f’ vast
and a corner plot, it shouildfbgeii b_i{.:’piAJ.i2,|”i’ci__auction only.
It was also info.rin,ed_ the proposed
grant of been rejected and
the fllehis thus rejected the
proposal in’*–t_oto_aVi’:d.”‘c,lo»se’dii the file. The appellants were
informed by the 3f? respondent on 08/09.09.1992 that the
pdropojsal_visAent:”t.o_ the Government seeking its approvai to
a’iiOt”l’.__the’~ has been rejected. The appellants
V _ subm”i’tted:arepresentation to the Minister seeking grant of
S.:aid.ri.;:}roperty and their representation was forwarded to
i_j__th’eV”2′”d respondent, who after examining the same,
C –«’..:V’o’utright|y rejected the request. In the meantime, the
k
9
appellants had managed to get the katha of the property
in their name, for which the 2″” respondent took serious
objection and directed in terms of a communication dated
05.11.1992, to take suitable action against those ‘who
were responsible for making out the katha of the
in the name of the appeilants. When the
thus, the Deputy Commissioner,,..,,by a_-“‘i’e’tte’r.2″‘da_’t.eda._
11.01.1995 directed the 3″‘ i-espondentrto.:re’su,i>ntii’t t’h4;§’i.,,fl.|’e1.i.:
pertaining to the allotment ofp_ro.p”erty’toV’th.e in
pursuance of which, the filey___yJ’a»s__ ‘resuiim-i«tted. _5Deputy
Commissioner forwardedvrlie, i’–ile{_to respondent on
17.08.1995. ‘and°~i:’iie”i2f”~.,:re*sp’oiident having re–examined
the matter’,__onceV”agai’n»* riejeécted the proposal and it was
aEso,,.<._1t')served t'r:–_1.l:, the proposed grant is in violation of
$eCt,ifioi*.s_i22(2)'-,, :00 & 112 of the Karnataka Municipalities
Actflgintiwe said proceedings, 2"" respondent
V . procleede-clltollpass an order dated 29.07.2002, suspending
H9""Au":..tiiiittti.r..4imrriediate effect, the registration of the katha and
.9«j__the"a'llotment of the property and further, restrained the
9 'a'ppei|ants from putting up any construction or carrying out
it
/,.
10
any activities in the property. 3″‘ respondent was directed
to take action in that regard. Appellants having presjsari’«ze’dVA
the Deputy Commissioner, who by a communtcjaitioni”d§ated”-‘-2A *
22.10.2002 directed the 3″ respondentyto reso’vi§”n?iiv’t t.he:fi_le’2-,_V “‘
and hence the file was forwarded-‘orr_’_’
Deputy Commissioner, forwar_d:e.d’ the “;2″‘;”A
respondent with his recommenAd.at:i’on ‘tongra’n’tl–thgeVAp§roperty
in favour of the appeiéllant-s_vf{-.a:t.::u.pgset price of
Rs.3,25,875/-. tlovi_reve:’;”‘the Vf’éom.missioner by
making a of the 2″”
responde_n__t_, under a letter
dated -‘or Government notification
dated 12.tS’;’–.2_003, Vth.ere i~s.:””rjreo4 provision to grant the land to
private’ ‘parties andas the 2″ respondent has rejected the
pArotp.osal_; theproperty be disposed of as per the directions
ilss_ué§.d%.b’y:°thg tjovernment. The appellants were notified
V . on about the rejection of the proposal by the
cfiox/.e..r_nment. 15″ respondent by its order dated 02.06.2003
.’yi’~_.sti..pLi’iated the norms that are required to be followed in the
0 matter of disposal of the lands belonging to the Local
\’~1.
/
./e’
Bodies. In pursuance of the said Government Order,___ the
Deputy Commissioner was requested to initiate..:furt–he-r
action for the saie of the property. In the
Project Director, Hassan District,_,»u.nder fa”‘I’ét£erV””da_tedi-._
05.11.2004 directed the 3″‘ respondentto’se¥i~.t_he:–‘.propiertyi_1.
through public auction in ‘ac’co,rdanc’e, with.’ti’ie’~~no-rms ‘~ 0’
stipulated in the Government:,O.rde.r.’=TAhe.happegliants were
cailed upon under a to vacate the
property and handoverithe.*s.arn:e._ii\,rith.inV.%.ivveek, for being
sold in pub|:_i_c–i again under a
letter 3″‘ respondent to
take steps. within 20 days, in
pUFSUanCeVV”Quf”‘J\(hViCh;’V’Vt|’I’€:!”‘3Fd respondent pubiished notice
both._§ntta.e not’i’c’e_.Vt):oarc:J and newspapers, proposing to seil
..pVrops:eVArty.,VAiri~«public auction on 30.06.2005.
Single Judge, considering the record
–V andthe”‘riévai’fcontentions, heid that, the petitioners having
in a misadventure of “suggestio faisi and
siuppressio veri,” must suffer the consequence. Further,
‘ii
/,.
12
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 72 of
the Act and Ruie 39 of the Karnataka Municipaiitties
(Guidance of Officers, Grant of Copies and
Provisions) Rules, 1966 and the decision
Mohan.P Sonu Vs. State of Karnat:akag:8{‘Qt’hger’s5
K.L.3 245) and the fact that the_”1~5t pe.titi;§iié’r has
committed fraud on power an’dV:_V’mi_sused.the oifificte for
gaining the property,’idismissnedyvi’thVe’V,.»vVt’v1.rit miion with
costs. Noticing that, the made use of
for more thar;_i”‘tiyo’V i}iii’tho’ut…..authority of iaw,
direction was i.ssued”‘*to4_”‘t’f3e«’E277″ res’pondent to hoid an
enquirytand the to recover the damages.
vi(§*V.AN_ara’simhan, iearned advocate
i-agppearinsggforgpthe ‘appeiiants, contended that:
“-t’.,’A(.a)’i:””‘_.{he;”i’etter of the Deputy Commissioner for
_ ‘ revision of the price concerning the property in
question and the decision taken by the 3′”
respondent to fix the rate at Rs.48/– per
Sc;.mtr, has not been appreciated by the
iearned Singie Judge.
(D)
(C)
13
The action to grant the site having bee_nv.ctai§env
ti’ii.e_”
long ago and having been acted ;_
question of applying the
notification as at Annexurre+.NA w’ou|.d””n0’t Vari’_se.’V..A
It was submitted that’»,._ trier..japp»e|iants°i.}iiegre1:_:
made to act in a p,articuia’ro_w’ay onsV.the ipremgisei
of certain situation ast-hen existed _”a-ndxiitiicouid
not have been takegn—–ai{va.y”t.o their p.r.ej.udice by
ap piicatio n of the’ said; notfiigcaitiiogn.
The..a;ppp’e||an;’ts pay the market
pr-ic’e,_ fhe’;’.imp:u_giii.ed ‘-E3CfI0ri_ on the part of 2″” &
3’-*_ nd Stified.
‘The Single Judge that the
‘first gapVpei”Ia.n’th’_as acted illegally or in bad faith
‘ ” is er-ro_ne’ous; in View of the subsequent events,
which ha\z’e”not been considered in the proper
‘V V A ‘ p_ersp~ective.
AV(e);’
” . __A7~not just and legai.
direction issued and the cost imposed is
Hence, interference in the
matter is calied for.
(e)
7.1′
15
of the property belonging to the Local
Authority and even otherwise, when the matter
was published, there were objections from the
public, which were considered by the Deputy
Commissioner and decision was takenAMtoV:’re..jjegftvv.,
the proposal, which was communicated’,:’t’o§’jthe’v—-.T’g
appellants, which they did
the other hand, they su:rrep:titiot,i.sly’m:oved_;the_
authorities by supres’sio:n_lzxoflll” .facts«. V’
attempted to gain”th’e~._propevrty i.ll_e’_c,.,aliy_’.’«-V…
The writ cou’fr’t._not_1″V’b’ei’r’s~t_j,.app,roache’d”within a
reasonable time’ of,.7reje_c’tion_’and also with
cl ean ha nd 5, A d” l”se,rj’titl’e.d;t_h ed ‘.reifi»edy.
the pleadings of the parties,
the records”‘p_4rodVuc’e_d, recorded by the learned
Singleilvjudge rival contentions urged for
‘=__cons..ideration,T*~.the following points arise for our
co~nsi-die ratio_n.; ‘ ‘ ‘ it
i.’ “Vi/h’e.ther there is suppression of material
Vinformation and the records by the writ
petitioners / appellants?
¥/
/9
“£6
ii. Whether there is misuse of power on the
part of the 1″ appellant, while he was
Municipal Councilor and Chairman Of:'”fl’?’e:VV’.-__’q-‘V:
Finance Committee of Holenarasipura”~«T[ov¢ii~.. ll
Municipal Council, in __the._
obtaining the grant of the:iprope.rty?’as..”
iii. Whether the grant of_p’;roperty?.
Municipal Council, Holenarasipura- C favour
of the appellan’ts.._is in”lconfoi’mity with la why? i
iv. Whetherin theietfaicts ci’rc,urnStances of
the case,Vgljany::__interleren(:ej’–with the order
passedploy5:72theslearnegd-«C_’Single Judge is
_called pt I’ ”
Re.Poin£ivs.igg;g;i:”7Tj’-~._:’ C
‘as:
Iundispultedlhy, .1 ‘appellant was the Councilor in
‘the “‘3″B 3»–.respondenét%-~ Municipality. He was also the
the:_l.~Finance Standing Committee when the
first »..r_esolutio§’i.TlVto grant the property in favour of “AS.
7-‘~___VParameshwaraiah and Brothers” was passed on
giOV’8;O.6:1983. It is in pursuance of the said resolution, the
.V%”‘–.i:e’M_urhicipai Council approved the aforesaid resolution,
it
/’
/1
17
subject to the concurrence / approval of the Government
and fixed the market price at Rs.16/– per squarefmete’i”-.,_4
When the proposal of grant was published
newspaper on 18.01.1989, there were.o,bjecti’oVn’s:.–frorn’_the’-_ it
public to the grant of the property
property would fetch much higlhVe’i=..yalule
by the Municipal Council,’ Depu,tyui(:o_mi:nissio’ner,co.hducted
the spot inspection on was drawn
and the Municipa_l:’*C_ounci’l’ isuhlbmit a report
on the existingrv o:’4′:,:t_t):e.,V,.Vpro’perty,ouiitesolution passed
by the ,,l’?lI.J.ni’c’iVp:a’i’.:wa’s:’forwarded to the Deputy
forwarded the same to the
Director of”‘f\/fulniycilpai’hidmihirristration for approval. The said
authoifiihty*consid’er.ing the nature of property, rejected the
p’ro’p.ovsa|_yj’aAnfld,figgzdered to sell the property in public auction,
which:deci’_siori1,”‘was communicated to the appellants.
V . Though alilpthese factors were well within the knowledge of
va.ppeilants, more particularly with the 15* appellant, not
at whisper has been made in writ petition with regard
T tohthe said aspects nor any records relating to the said
\:,»
f.
I8
proceedings were produced along with the writ petition.
Had not the 3″‘ respondent filed the state:m’efhtc:.V”~of
objections and produced the records
proceedings which have taken place,—the–‘_wri,l:” w’oul’id
have been deprived of knowing the woulCE2.::’h~aV§/’e._VV
got misled. A person who-.app%roaches’thle’._: under”
Articles 226/227 of thegtionstiituqthion[must comerwith frank
and full disclosure of”4’factst’« gny attempt to
overreach the_§;’o_urt information or
material a bearing on the
Questi0n,.ma’rwri«?3::.;Dtetfiigoitlle to be dismissed. The
n0n–disclosure2V”V’of-..:thei'”fa_c’ts’.’ which were well within the
knowledgeéeof x”the’.’._appellants, certainly amounts to
suppression ofw…hfi_ate.:*Ial facts. The appellants despite
‘.2ha\r’ireg_ith.e«imowledge of the proceedings and the records,
“‘n_o”ti._c;ecl”é’uv»pra}f”Vhave indulged in act of suppression and
hence, “learned Single Judge is justified in observing
2. there is misadventure on the part of the writ
_’ “p.et’itioners of “suppressio veri et suggestio falsi.”
\a
19
Re.Point No. ii :
9. Indisputedly, first appellant was the if4.un::ipa1
Councillor and also the Chairman of Finance .
the 3″ respondent as on 8.6.83i_ The~”g*ra.:n_t:'”oi’
property to the appellants was first2tai<en..up7§.n1 the Fi"n:a..nce_l'
Committee meeting held on .8.6_,_83 V\ivhi(':'n Vwas"V'{:ylia..i_red:'§ by
the 13' appellant. A reso|ution4_l:"mi,as–ipassed:to grant the
property of the to "M/S.
A.S.Parameshwara_iah same day,
the Municipal of. passed the
resolution property as resolved by
its Igtvvlappeilant had withdrawn
himself from rhea.5rece_ea.ifi’g’e of the Finance Committee
and Council» held on 8.6.83, there could have
been”no:””ocea’s.\i._on to call it a misuse of power. Being the
Finance Committee, 15″ appellant had
C parti’c.ipated-lint the deliberations and the Committee has
u””~..VVVpassLed..the resolution for the benefit of the Chairman of
a.éthVe*»C.o5mmittee and his brothers. The action is nothing but
misuse of power for personal gain. 1″ appellant has made
i
t./_’ .
2}
his position both as a Chairman of Finance Committee and
as a Councilor of Town Municipal Council, Holenai’asip’u-ra,
in the matter of obtaining the grant of the ~
Re.Point i\io.(iii):-
11. The mandate of s.72(2′),_o°i~’._ittfie i¢§c’tA.that,”*arjy._VV
immovable property belongin.g””~~to a.munic,ipa|iVty”V’i’s’ to be’
sold, leased or transferredA,.iti”ied,_:va”i’ut,e ofa’w’hAich’E exceeds
Rs.2S,0OG/– (earlier gzionsideration, such
property couldhe.__solc’,wle’as:edsjoti’t:raVn’si’ai;Vted only with the
previous Rule 39 provides
the statutorily obligated to
adoptlthei’ under Rule 39, by which it
can get m”a.xi’muVm possitile consideration for transfer of
property«.t’ The methodology which can be
‘adopted:for”receiving maximum consideration would be the
g5ul:)'”iiic aucti?o_n.a:’which is expected to be fair and transparent.
Public… auction not only ensures fair price and maximum
A return, it also militates against any obligation of favourism
on the part of the authorities, while giving grant for
\
/T’
while disposing of the property of a municipality. There has
to be distinct demarcated approach by the Municip-aglity /
local body, when compared with a disposal
property. When a property of an authority
there should be an invitation forpa«rtic,ipation«.lnlpubnlic
auction to ensure transparency, Vo__b’ta_in ma_,-:AiArn*umV’:eturn,,
and to be free from any bias’orfdiscrim’i\.g_atl.on=.
13. In the case of M_Qh:an_ SONU..\{s._;STATE or
KARNATAKA & OTHEVRESTg(19$2§.(2)u”§{Q::24S), material facts
of the case were that,”a’dj~a:cen’t..,to_ appellant’s property,
belonged to a Municipal
Counc’ii«,VAn made for allotment, upon
whigcb, ToaWn,_:VMunicipal”‘Council, passed a resolution and
Arecom.-rnerldéed thatthe land be granted to the appellant.
‘Therm was forwarded to the State
‘C3o4yernrne’n-t’lVyvhich accorded sanction under S.72(2) of the
Act, toflallot the land to the appellant at the market price.
V.€\_ ys;rit petition was filed by a resident of the town
flrizluestioning the correctness of the Government order,
L
/
I
25
Matters relating to public revenue cannot be dealt with
arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office. fiW:ttate.ver
done in that regard should be done in i;i)i_th
law, which, in the instant case, requires dufé
be given to dispose of the property uh’
manner.
5. Section 72 is a furtlier safeguard. ‘ givenr . L’
to the proposal of Munlicipal _ Courzciliito dispose of
property rights urider Rztlelfltlwlould attract ‘offers from
persons interested’ rights and these
offers would enableihthe’ to decide
whether” fl’:’eL:Sc1ncT_ti0:1 the State…Covernment that is
“‘fi”_/’2l.’:s!r1.ould or should not be
given. ieoniplementary to Section
both oper ate~ together.
6. it matter, we must hold that the
_ learned ._:l’3ingle Judge was right in coming to the
co_nclusion’ttiat——tlie alienation. of the said land in favour
appellant without following the proper procedure
it by.-Rule 39, was bad in law. ”
The stend taken by 3″” respondent in its statement of
(objections which is supported by the record discloses that,
the ‘town Municipal Councii has not acted in conformity
“with iaw in the matter of grant of its property to the
4
28
the same with reference to the relevant provisions of law,
has passed the order dismissing the writ petitiVoia_,:”‘nE’ven
after reconsideration of the record, we are tinab’i’e3.ta..:a’ri=Vé_yet_
at any different findings or conclusion in~~th-e’::n’iaitter.
impugned order is flawless.
For the foregoing reasons, the’ appsea’ij_:i.a_cVks_T§ndverituv
and shall stand rejected. Ordverefd accotrd-inigijj/.
Ksj/~
sac*